The Indianapolis journal. [volume] (Indianapolis [Ind.]) 1867-1904, 1887-01-06
The Sentinel aud the Supreme Court.

from leading Democrat of this city:
To the Editor of the Indianapolis Journal
That the entire people of the State of In.
diana may know the infamy of the Indiana
State Sentinel, l most respectfully request you
to publish entire. in conspicuous place in to-
morrows issue of the Journal the Sentinelis
leader of this morning on the Supreme Court OF
this State A DEMoCRAT.
In accordance with this request, we give the
article, as follows:
THE SUPREME COURT.
''Damn their cowardly souls.
s'The members of the Supreme Court OF In
diana afraid Of their shadows
Yesterday judge Elliott delivered the opinion
of the court in the Smith Robertson Lieutenant
eovernorship There was dissenting
opinion. more's the pity
THE court decides that the Circuit Court,
before which the injunction proceedings were
originally instituted. had no jurisdiction. That
being its opinion, it begs to be excused from
considering the validity of Robertson's election :
1.-THE opinion closes with these words:
sit is rudmentary principle acted upon again and
again. that when it is ascertained that thsse ur
isdction courts viii go fur7hcr. frwoud not ohfy
be vain and fruitless thing to assume to decide q
question where there is jurisdiction but it would
be mischevous thing. because it would give an APP
pearance of authority to that which is utterly desti
tute of force. Such decision would be the merest
shadow of authority, binding nobody. People va.
Comm. % \. Y. 403; Wooden Town, . II. l.,
1919 1t is laid up among the earliest principles Of
the law that decision where there is no jurisdiction
is absolutely and ncurably void This principle FREE
quently finds expression although not always aceur
ately or elegantly in the statement often found in
the books: That such judgment is coram NON judics
and void
This by way Of apology!
eve invite the attention of the people Of In
diana to this decision. The proceedings were be-
gun in good faith by Senator Smith in order to
avoid trouble. The only object was to secure
from the courts of the State definite determine
alton of his rights.
Il,,x& 49, J,d~ k1,~,
ton, taking advantage of technicality to es-
cape the responsibility of decision upon the
only vital issue. 1t is most disgraceful exhibit
ton Of judicial cowardice.
The opinion is devoted to an elaborate inves-
tigation of the right of the lower court to issue
an injunction. Ten lines would have been suffi-
clent, but the court must parade its erudition
upon this inconsequential question In order to
cloak its poltroonery. What the people wanted
the court to decide was whether or not Robert
sons election was valid. That was all they
| wanted. TO decide such matters is the purpose
for which these gentlemen are hired To shirk
their duty and to excuse their pusillanimity by
| pleading technical privilege is utterly con-
| temptible and not one Of them need trouble him.
self to ask the suffrages of the people again. The
| court prates of precedent. There rearns upon
reams of presidents, volumes upon volumes OF
authorities. which warrant Judge in brushing
| away cobwebs. and deciding upon the funda-
| mental question of a cause 1t is the first thing
a law student is taught. and 1t Is the continuous
/
| that judges must be guided by common sense,
and must sweep aside purely technical consider
ations when they stand in the way of justice.
But these pettifogcing hair -splitters evade a
plain duty by taking advantage of just such q
technical consideration as the masters Of the law
expressly protest against Instead of striving
to Satisfy the demands of the people, they have
wormed through the statute books and racked
their brains to find how not to do it. The peo-
| pie asked for bread, and they have been given .
stone. 1t matters not how much they may gid
it, and how strenuously they may assert in
/ plausible platitudes that il is not stone, ii ia
utter mockery and deception.
III only one man had shown honesty enough
and courage enough to have dissented some
/ thing Of the august character of the court would
| have been saved; but it stands crying
| shame. Have not these chattering owls sense
| enough to perceive that the reason why the la
| boring men of the country declaim so bitterly
| against the courts is that they find 1t SO hard
| and expensive to obtain justice when attor-
| neys for corporations can so frequently and SO
| successfully block the operation OF the law by
raising the barriers of technical construction
| And do they not see that they have done the
| very thing in this which has tended to
bring the judiciary into dsreputel'